No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles? G

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course. Your church even calls St. John of Damascus a doctor who stated

Quote

All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour, seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable. to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course. Your church even calls St. John of Damascus a doctor who stated

Quote

All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour, seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable. to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition.

Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.

LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.

If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.

LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.

If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Get ready for some Apologetic Acrobatics from the Anti-Catholics buddy.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.

LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.

If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Get ready for some Apologetic Acrobatics from the Anti-Catholics buddy.

Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.

LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.

If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Get ready for some Apologetic Acrobatics from the Anti-Catholics buddy.

I take it you've been down this road before, eh?

Oh boy yes. The anti-Catholics will try and pretend that there was no doctrinal development between the time of the Apostles and the seventh ecumenical council, but read Justin Martyr, Iraneaus of Lyons, etc. Their understanding of the Three person of the Trinity is no where near as developed as the Trinitarian doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils. BTW, do the second century Fathers ever mention that icons are windows into heaven? Oh, and was there even a practice of private confession in the early Church, or was this done publicly before the whole body of believers in a given town? Did St. Clement expound on the Palamite version of the essence/energies distinction? I'm just saying.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 11:38:44 AM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course.

Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later? Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.

LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.

If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined.

Yes, the Arians.

Quote

Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development

You have been reading the DaVinci code. Christ didn't become divine at Nicea I.

Quote

even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.

The word "Bible" isn't in the scripture either, but the canon wasn't made up when the term was coined.

Quote

Doctrinal development is not a bad thing.

Depends how you feel about heresy.

Quote

Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing.

LOL. Your Vatican does it all the time. Pope Leo III puts the original Creed on the doors of saint Peter in Rome, banning the filioque. Pope Leo IX of Rome sends his delegate to excommunicate the East for refusing to add the filioque. Sorry, those two positions are not compatable.

Quote

We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Like gnosis?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.

LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.

If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Get ready for some Apologetic Acrobatics from the Anti-Catholics buddy.

I take it you've been down this road before, eh?

Oh boy yes. The anti-Catholics will try and pretend that there was no doctrinal development between the time of the Apostles and the seventh ecumenical council, but read Justin Martyr, Iraneaus of Lyons, etc. Their understanding of the Three person of the Trinity is no where near as developed as the Trinitarian doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils. BTW, do the second century Fathers ever mention that icons are windows into heaven? Oh, and was there even a practice of private confession in the early Church, or was this done publicly before the whole body of believers in a given town? Did St. Clement expound on the Palamite version of the essence/energies distinction? I'm just saying.

I'm going to repost something long (yeah, I know, suprise) but may not have the time to comment more. I originally argued this against Sola Scriptura for the only source of the Faith. I'll adapt it to the OP.

An example of what happens when Sola Scriptura runs against Apostolic Tradition:Joshua Joshua 22:10 And when they came to the region about the Jordan, that lies in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of great size. 11 And the people of Israel heard say, "Behold, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh have built an altar at the frontier of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that belongs to the people of Israel." 12 And when the people of Israel heard of it, the whole assembly of the people of Israel gathered at Shiloh, to make war against them. 13 Then the people of Israel sent to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, 14 and with him ten chiefs, one from each of the tribal families of Israel, every one of them the head of a family among the clans of Israel. 15 And they came to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, and they said to them, 16 "Thus says the whole congregation of the LORD, 'What is this treachery which you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the LORD, by building yourselves an altar this day in rebellion against the LORD? 17 Have we not had enough of the sin at Pe'or from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which there came a plague upon the congregation of the LORD, 18 that you must turn away this day from following the LORD? And if you rebel against the LORD today he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow. 19 But now, if your land is unclean, pass over into the LORD's land where the LORD's tabernacle stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us; only do not rebel against the LORD, or make us as rebels by building yourselves an altar other than the altar of the LORD our God. 20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity.'"

21 Then the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh said in answer to the heads of the families of Israel, 22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith toward the LORD, spare us not today 23 for building an altar to turn away from following the LORD; or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or cereal offerings or peace offerings on it, may the LORD himself take vengeance. 24 Nay, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel ? 25 For the LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you Reubenites and Gadites; you have no portion in the LORD.' So your children might make our children cease to worship the LORD. 26 Therefore we said, 'Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, 27 but to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings; lest your children say to our children in time to come, "You have no portion in the LORD."' 28 And we thought, If this should be said to us or to our descendants in time to come, we should say, 'Behold the copy of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you.' 29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!"

30 When Phin'ehas the priest and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites spoke, it pleased them well. 31 And Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest said to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites, "Today we know that the LORD is in the midst of us, because you have not committed this treachery against the LORD; now you have saved the people of Israel from the hand of the LORD." 32 Then Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, and the chiefs, returned from the Reubenites and the Gadites in the land of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the people of Israel, and brought back word to them. 33 And the report pleased the people of Israel; and the people of Israel blessed God and spoke no more of making war against them, to destroy the land where the Reubenites and the Gadites were settled. 34 The Reubenites and the Gadites called the altar Witness; "For," said they, "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."

Now, note the following:

The Sola Scriptura folks were quite correct: the Law given to Moses had restricted sacrifices to one altar before the one Tabernacle. Btw, the tribes living on the East of the Jordan was a deviation from what God had commanded, revealed in His Word, and to which the Prophet Moses objected (Numbers 32, especially verses 6-15). Sort of like the innovation of the monarchy (I Kingdoms/Samuel 8, esp. verses 6-7), but we go a Messiah out of that (I Chronicles 17). Yet it is those who add Tradition to the mix who save Israel that day, as the chiefs of the Assembly/Congregation (we would say "Church") of Israel admit.

However, the Sola Scriptura first accuse the Eastern tribes of rebelling against God's Word, setting something that they see in addition to, and hence in opposition to (in their mind) in order to supplant God's Word, and replacing the Word of God with the traditions of men. And their solution? Just stick to the text and cross over to us.

The Eastern tribes had the foresight to see that, people being people, and sin being sin, that the Books of Moses were not going to suffice to stop Israel from sin. Those on the West Bank would focus on the literal promises to Abraham (which said nothing of the East Bank) and would interpret it in a manner which suited their sense of sensibilities: the Promised Land should fit our idea of the Land of Canaan (sort of like the idea of eating Body and Blood). Acting on this, they would exclude the Easterners, leading them to sin.

So the solution? Set up an interpretation of the letter of the law that preserved an indisputable indication of its spirit. And this they did.

A Melkite priest gave the best one word definition of Chrsitianity: witness.

Now, the problem most Protestants have with Tradition is the idea that the Church which set it up has tried to suppliment, and hence oppose, in order to supplant, Scripture.

We do not believe in, say, the Real Presense because St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom the Aposles ordained themselves as successor of St. Peter in the place where the disciples were first called Christians, writes in c. 105:Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they will not confess that the Eucharist is the self same flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

we believe in the Real Presence because He said, "This is My Body," "This is My Blood." Rising, He appeared and was known to the Apostles in the breakding of the bread that first Pascha (Luke 24:13-36 NOT btw, in His opening of the scriptures, though that did make their heart burn). Those who continued steadfast in the Apostles' doctrines communed in the breaking of bread in the prayers of the DL every Sunday from the Resurrection until June 7, 2009 (Acts 2:42, 20:7), which we received, delievered to us by the Apostles from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23. btw. when these words were written, the Church had been gathering on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7) for over two decades).

Now, the Aposles weren't doing this because of the verses quoted. Rather the verses were written to record what the Apostles did, what they were doing, believing, teaching, whether by word or letter (I Thess. 2:15) so those who followed could stand fast and hold these traditions, and withdraw (I Thes. 3:6) from those who refused to walk according to the traditions which they delievered and which we received.

St. Ignatius stood fast and held that tradition, and did not neglect that gift that was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, guarding what was committed to him. (I Tim. 4:14, 6:20) St. Ignatius set in order bishops in every city as the Aposltes commanded, to hold fast the faithful word as it had been taught, by word or letter, to both exhort and convict by sound doctrine those of a different opinion (heresia) who contradicted, and refused to walk according to that tradition. (cf. Titus 1:5-9). As the letters show, strong in the grace of Christ Jesus, he was committing these traditions he heard by word from the Apostles to the Faithful to teach others. (2 Tim. 2:1-2), that the Catholic Church continue in breaking the bread, the communion of the self same Body of Christ (I Cor. 10:16).

We do not believe in the Real Presence because St. Ignatius says so: he received the same Faith we received, and he stands as a Witness that God has erected between the Apostles and us, as a sign post as to whether we walk according to the Tradition of the Apostles or not. "Lo! I am with you always (Greek: "all the days") even unto the end of the age." Those were His parting words. And so He has: rather than standing gazing, the Church has raised up witnessses to that same Faith, who stand as witnesses between us and the Apostles. We have not abandoned the Bible for the Fathers (and Mothers!). Rather surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we are able to point to the Witness, like the Eastern Tribes to the altar on the Jordan, to show that we are right in our interpretation of Scripture, including the Words of Institution (themselves written in the Gospels to reflect Church practice). Every generation, we can document, from the Apostles to this day, those who, if they lived in our day, would come to OUR Church and commune with us (of course, closed communion is part of that Apostolic Tradition). Their Faith is our Faith, and that is the value of their words, not that they replace the Bible. Rather they preserve the full import of the Bible.

Tradition is giving our ancestors, our Fathers, the ones who passed down the Faith and copied and preserved the Bible, a vote.

Catechesis means "echo," and Christ's Word has roared throughout the generations through Apostolic Tradition.

As our priest says, if you come up with an interpretation of Scripture that no one else has, be cautious and ask yourself if you are wrong. If it contradicts what has gone before, YOU ARE DEFINITELY WRONG.

How to interpret Acts 8:31? The believers of sola scriptura cannot tell us. They have no one to guide them.

I'm going to repost something long (yeah, I know, suprise) but may not have the time to comment more. I originally argued this against Sola Scriptura for the only source of the Faith. I'll adapt it to the OP.....

Title of the thread confused the Consensus Patrum as a Source of Faith: the Consensus does not provide the Source of Faith, it reflects it.

There is only one soure of the Faith, Christ. How that one source is transmitted, and how its transmition is verified, is what is at issue.

The Faith is transitted in the Holy Mysteries: as the Fathers say, Christ has passed into the Holy Mysteries, the signs of Christ's life within His Body, the Church. When the Church acts as the Body of Christ, as a Body, in unity with her Head, then she speaks infallibly. That is why the assent of the Faithful is needed, for instance, for the Ecumenicity of a Council.

There is, for no instance, no objective criteria on which to base the canon of the Bible. Authorship by an Apostle does not determine the canon of the NT: St. Luke, strictly speaking, is not an Apostle-he does not include himself in the company of eyewitness and ministers of the Word from the beginning (Luke 1:2, cf. Acts 1:21-2). Yet there is no question of it being in the Orthodox canon. St. Clement's first epistle (I'll leave aside the question of the second) which was reckoned as Scripture: after Clement received his doctrine directly from the Apostles, and not as an eyewitness of Christ, the same way St. Luke received his doctrine. Clement's epistles are approved by the Apostolic Canons (85), but yet St. Luke is canonized and St. Clement is not. If an archaeologist dug up St. Paul's missing Epistles or when they dug up the Gospels that record Acts 20:35, or the Jesus seminar could prove that St. Thomas wrote the Gospel named after him, none were or would be accepted into the canon. The Church has spoken. Many Fathers and Churches deemed Reveltion spurious, but the Church accepted it into the canon, and even if textual criticism would able to prove that St. John did not write it, it would remain in the canon as the Church has received it as an expression of her Faith in the return of her Bridegroom.

And that is why the Bible is canonized: it is not that the Church collected documents that the Apostles wrote. Rather, they looked at what the Faithful had produced in the bosom of the Church, recognized herself in it, and adopted it as her self revelation. Sort of like when parents see themselves in their children, and leave them as their legacy. The Bible is not like the America Constitution, which brought a new government into order which is derived from that constition: it is like the Canadian Constitution, which merely codifies the system of government in place. When St. Paul refers to Christ's life, he is not teaching history. He is appealing to an audience who already knows His life. Case in point: St. Paul's account of the Mystical Supper predates all the Gospels' accounts of it. But he is not telling the Corinthians nothing that they do not already know (I Corin. 11:23) In fact the ongoing Great Canon of the DL helped shape the Gospels' account.

That is why Sola Scriptura doesn't work: it is like owning the manuel, but not owning the car.

St. Theophan deals with the issue of why we say prayers written by the saints. It is not because they are a replacement for Scripture nor for our own words. But as we do not know how to pray as we ought, we look to those who did. The saints we know (because they have been glorified, and their words consecrated by the usage of the Church) had reached the stage where the Holy Spirit spoke within them at prayer. In that state, they composed in human language their thoughts in that state. Using these words as guideposts, we are trying to follow them into the state where the Holy Spirit gives utterance to our prayers. As the lesson of the Samaritan woman shows: the Samaritans came because of what she told them, but they reached a point at which they believed from knowing Him for themselves (John 4:43).

So too the Liturgy: the Church gathered as the Body of Christ so that He made be in their midst have put that experience into words. The Church as a whole has adopted the Liturgy as the public expression of that experience, hence the appeal of liturgical texts for dogma: lex credendi, lex orandi. But in that order: we do not believe that Christ is in the Eucharist because the DL says so, rather because we believe so, and experience Him in the Eucharist, that the DL so says.

So too the Dogmatic Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. The Faith cannot be added too. No development of doctrine, if it was not in the Apostles' preaching it cannot be in the Dogma of the Church. When heresy infected the Body of Christ, the Body of Christ, as a Body, mustered its antibodies, the Fathers and developed an immunity, the Dogmatic Definitions, to the heresy. They did not add to the Faith: as the body already has the antibody proteins but only puts them to work to form a defense against the foreign pathogen, so too the Fathers only erect from pre-existing materials a boundary marker which the Orthodox may not move. The Fathers confessed the same Faith, but in different words to ensure it remained the same Faith. The expression of Faith changes only so that the Faith can remain the same, something litrugists should keep in mind.

The iconography writes an icon only when he follows the canon the Church has laid down for the visual expression of her Faith. Otherwise he is a forger and a counterfeiter (like our deluded friend Lentz). The icon is the expression of the Church, not personal agendas, and just like a counterfeiter tries to make his money look real but it has no value, so too the icongrapher who oversteps the Church's bounds. That is why we appeal to the icons when we are asked about what we believe, because they are backed by the full Faith and Credit of the Church.

No Church Father is infallible: only Christ is infallible, and the Church's infallibility flows from her being His Body. But that flows only when she acts as a Body, like in Ecumenical Council. Any individual member cannot act infallibility, so why the claim of the alleged "visible head" to speak infallibly cannot be accepted. So too, no one should expect every word of an individual Father to be infallible. It is only in as much as they reflect the common Faith, between us and them and lived in the Church now, that they constitute the Consensus Patrum. What they served, as I pointed out in my OP, as a witness between us and heretics, so when they claim that the Real Presence is an innovation, that we point to St. Ignatius etc.: they witenss to the Faith as we witness to the Faith.

Which is the point of my OP to the OP: merely extended Sola Scriptura to included Ecumenical Councils and certain Fathers misses the point. These are not the source of Faith: they are witnesses, like the altar on the Jordan, to make sure we have kept the Faith.

I'm just saying.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course.

Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later? Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 05:04:41 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course.

Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later? Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.

I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles. I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.

So when it's the Arians getting upset over the doctrinal development of the Trinity, they are heretics, but when doctrinal development doesn't suit the East, they're free to just leave and dub Rome heretical. Double standard much?

You have been reading the DaVinci code. Christ didn't become divine at Nicea I.

I never said that that was when Christ became divine. I said that was the Council where the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was defined. Are you asserting that the doctrine of the Trinity was as clear and developed before Nicea as it was after Nicea? If that's the case it begs the question: why have Ecumenical Councils at all if the faith was already given to us and everything was already sown up?

The word "Bible" isn't in the scripture either, but the canon wasn't made up when the term was coined.

That's because the Bible didn't exist as a whole whenever the Scriptures were being written. Conversely, the Holy Trinity existed before it was formally recognized by Nicea. As such, there's no excuse for it not being in the New Testament unless.....oh wait for it.............it was a doctrinal development.

LOL. Your Vatican does it all the time. Pope Leo III puts the original Creed on the doors of saint Peter in Rome, banning the filioque. Pope Leo IX of Rome sends his delegate to excommunicate the East for refusing to add the filioque. Sorry, those two positions are not compatable.

I would imagine Pope Leo III left out the filioque more because he didn't want to rock the boat with the East. Whether he actually thought it was heretical in and of itself I don't know, but I would imagine he didn't have anything against the filioque personally. He was being a diplomat.

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course.

Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later? Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.

I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles.

Not at all. Just correcting your error.

Quote

I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.

Yes, the monologue with yourself is very amusing. For starters, the first item on your list, have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So when it's the Arians getting upset over the doctrinal development of the Trinity, they are heretics, but when doctrinal development doesn't suit the East, they're free to just leave and dub Rome heretical. Double standard much?

No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.

You have been reading the DaVinci code. Christ didn't become divine at Nicea I.

I never said that that was when Christ became divine. I said that was the Council where the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was defined. Are you asserting that the doctrine of the Trinity was as clear and developed before Nicea as it was after Nicea? If that's the case it begs the question: why have Ecumenical Councils at all if the faith was already given to us and everything was already sown up?

I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.

The word "Bible" isn't in the scripture either, but the canon wasn't made up when the term was coined.

That's because the Bible didn't exist as a whole whenever the Scriptures were being written. Conversely, the Holy Trinity existed before it was formally recognized by Nicea. As such, there's no excuse for it not being in the New Testament unless.....oh wait for it.............it was a doctrinal development.

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.

LOL. Your Vatican does it all the time. Pope Leo III puts the original Creed on the doors of saint Peter in Rome, banning the filioque. Pope Leo IX of Rome sends his delegate to excommunicate the East for refusing to add the filioque. Sorry, those two positions are not compatable.

I would imagine

imagining is where problems start.

Quote

Pope Leo III left out the filioque more because he didn't want to rock the boat with the East. Whether he actually thought it was heretical in and of itself I don't know, but I would imagine he didn't have anything against the filioque personally. He was being a diplomat.

No, but then it wasn't claiming to "develop" anything, and wasn't enunciating things never heard before.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 05:32:30 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.

If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course.

Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later? Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Hey Stanley.

I do think the Orthodox Church has changed its practices over the centuries, and you can find similarities between the general development of ideas. However, I think the idea of a single Pope as always infallible whenever he talks ex Cathedra so strongly contradicts basic ideas of man's fallibility, that it's pretty wrong. I think that Catholic church has made big inventions around the time of the schism and after. Orthodox church has changed or made new things, but not nearly as strongly or enough to say that it breaks with the fundamentals of Apostolic teaching.

Main problem is the blind obedience to Pope who is seen as unequal with all other apostles and infallible vicar of Christ. It's leading toward an idea of an "anti-Christ", someone seen as "Christ on earth", but who is not. Problems like original sin, purgatory, ban on contraceptives absolutely, are secondary IMO. And I think that the Catholic Church makes belief in ALL these doctrines absolutes, unlike Orthodox Church. Also, I don't think this is a reflection on Catholics, since probably 80% actually don't believe in all of these things.

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.

If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.

Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures. You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either. He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same. You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:

But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development. So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course.

Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later? Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.

I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles.

Not at all. Just correcting your error.

Quote

I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.

Yes, the monologue with yourself is very amusing. For starters, the first item on your list, have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?

Yes. I agree it is a monologue, because you are not responding to the observation that your assumptions are untenable.

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course.

Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later? Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Hey Stanley.

I do think the Orthodox Church has changed its practices over the centuries, and you can find similarities between the general development of ideas. However, I think the idea of a single Pope as always infallible whenever he talks ex Cathedra so strongly contradicts basic ideas of man's fallibility, that it's pretty wrong. I think that Catholic church has made big inventions around the time of the schism and after. Orthodox church has changed or made new things, but not nearly as strongly or enough to say that it breaks with the fundamentals of Apostolic teaching.

Main problem is the blind obedience to Pope who is seen as unequal with all other apostles and infallible vicar of Christ. It's leading toward an idea of an "anti-Christ", someone seen as "Christ on earth", but who is not. Problems like original sin, purgatory, ban on contraceptives absolutely, are secondary IMO. And I think that the Catholic Church makes belief in ALL these doctrines absolutes, unlike Orthodox Church. Also, I don't think this is a reflection on Catholics, since probably 80% actually don't believe in all of these things.

Best wishes

I can see this argument, as I have already said before, and yes, it has to be discussed and looked at very seriously, but it is not the point that I was addressing. The point concerns the objection to the teaching on Purgatory on the basis that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, or that it was not explicitly taught by the Apostles. I would not go with such an argument, since I see developments in Orthodox teaching also.

BTW, do the second century Fathers ever mention that icons are windows into heaven?

St Dionysius the Areopagite, baptised into the faith by Apostle Paul in the first century AD, is frequently quoted by St John of Damascus in his treatise On the Divine Images. Here are some of St Dionysius' writings which St John uses as references, which clearly proclaim icons as windows into heaven:

Instead of attaching the common conception to images, we should look upon what they symbolise, and not despise the divine mark and character which they portray, as sensible images of mysterious and heavenly visions.

Sensible images do indeed show forth invisible things.

And, yes, I am quite aware of the attribution by modern scholars of the above to a "pseudo-Dionysius". The point is, that nothing of what St John used as references (and he quoted many other early Fathers, such as Sts John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, and others) are contradictory to Orthodox doctrine, theology or thought. Let's not forget that St John of Damascus is, in effect, a patron saint of Orthodox hymnography and iconography. Also, let's not forget that iconography, even in its most primitive form, has existed from the earliest days of Christianity. A surprising amount of catacomb "art" survives to this day.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Is there a consensus that St. Dionysius (New Testament personality) was really the author of the Aeropagite corpus? I'm not denigrating the writings (Fr. Meyendorff wasn't that fond of them or "neo-Platonism" in general), it's more a question of authorship.

Edit: never mind, I just scanned some aditional sentences. It's an old debate.

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.

Who claimed that?

I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God revealed no such thing, and the Apostles taught no such thing.Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?

Of course.

Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later? Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.

I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles.

Not at all. Just correcting your error.

Quote

I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.

Yes, the monologue with yourself is very amusing. For starters, the first item on your list, have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?

Yes. I agree it is a monologue, because you are not responding to the observation that your assumptions are untenable.

I observed a lot of assertions to that, but, with the failure demonstrated to distinguish normal growth from radical plastic surgery or even the attachment of an extra head, there really isn't anything to respond to the assertion of developement as giving license to change, any change.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

LOL. Which means its attribution to St. Dionysius is older, and the writings older still. Btw, the debate goes back further...

Ok... were you under the impression that I thought differently?

Just making sure.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth